It's
the annual public-awareness campaign designed to highlight the issue
of the public's right to access government information. Mainstream media's
stated goals during this time is to make sure people know they can get
their hands on a goodly-amount of what lurks inside file cabinets and
databases of government agencies both local and federal.

That's
rich, given the propaganda machine that mainstream media's become thanks
to pre-packaged government-produced news reports that are regularly
used by newspapers, network affiliates and radio stations alike.

That's
right, federal, state and local governments have been taking advantage
of cash-strapped, down-sized newsrooms all across the country and finding
willing acceptance for their pre-packaged news stories. "Video news
releases" produced by the federal government make it onto your local
news with frightening regularity. You see a "news" story, you DON'T
see who put it together.

Federal
agencies from the Pentagon to the Department of Agriculture have been
blurring the lines between government information and propaganda for
years now. While the Clinton administration utilized government-produced
news items, the Bush administration has taken the use of this means
of influencing public opinion to a whole new level. Congressional democrats
say Bush's White House spent double ($254 million during its first term)
what Clinton spent on PR contracts to get certain policy-related stories
on the air and into print.

Local
TV stations get a "story"on medicare (and how recipients will get better
drug coverage with lower spending) without having to use limited resources
to actually produce the story- and the administration gets to advance
the notion that the first-ever prescription drug "benefit" is a good
thing…. (for the pharmaceutical industry?) While PR companies, the federal
government and the local affiliates might consider this a win-win situation
, the public should realize it's lose-lose for them.

Recently
a study sponsored by the Knight Foundation and reported by The Oregonian
showed that fully half of the high school students who responded said
that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to publish everything without the
government's approval.[1]

Given
the preponderance of government-produced "news" reports, those kids
should be thrilled!

So
much for the First Amendment.

The
next time you watch a TV news story about how rebuilding efforts in
Afghanistan or Iraq are going just according to plan, stop and ask yourself
"who serves to benefit from this report?"

And
ask if the code of ethics the Radio-Television News Directors Association
is being adhered to. It states:

"
Clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided
by outsiders".

When
next you see a story about a new pharmaceutical product, or about the
good things being done by the Agriculture Department-which by the way
has an annual budget of over $3.2 million to produce roughly 90 "minute
messages" for local affiliates- [2]call
the station and inquire as to the source of that report. Chances are
they won't even know! When stories get fed from satellite sources, some
news directors aren't even aware those stories originated from the federal
government.

Time
to rethink your news source?

Time
to stop thinking "it MUST be true I saw it on TV/ read it in the paper"?

Time
to wonder how we came to allow 'state-sponsored' news ?

Time
to let the sunshine in.

Footnotes:

1,
The Sunday Oregonian, 3/13/05/ Arrietta-Walden2,
The New York Times, 3/13/05/ Barstow, Stein

Mary Starrett was on television for 21 years
as a news anchor, morning talk show host and medical reporter. For the
last 5 years she hosted a radio program. Mary is a frequent guest on radio
talk shows.

That's
right, federal, state and local governments have been taking advantage
of cash-strapped, down-sized newsrooms all across the country and finding
willing acceptance for their pre-packaged news stories.